 ...in Autumn |  ...at sunset |  ...at dawn? |
This week's thought experiment sure seems like a straightforward case of right and wrong. Take a close look:
---------------------------------------------------
Avenue of Poplars at Dawn was set to join the ranks of van Gogh masterpieces. This "lost" work would sell for millions and generate volumes of scholarship comparing it to the two other paintings van Gogh made of the same scene at different times.
This pleased Joris van den Berg, for he, not van Gogh, had painted Avenue of Poplars at Dawn. Joris was an expert forger and he was certain that his latest creation would be authenticated as genuine. That would not only increase his wealth enormously but also give him tremendous satisfaction.
Only a few close friends knew what Joris was up to. One expressed very serious moral misgivings, which Joris had brushed off. As far as he was concerned, if this painting was judged to be as good as a van Gogh original, then it was worth every penny that was paid for it. Anyone who paid more than it was really worth just because it was van Gogh's own work was a fool who deserved to be parted from his money.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 196.
---------------------------------------------------
While Joris is clearly deceiving the world in a problematic way, does this say anything interesting about the nature of art and how it is bound to the artist? I'll be back on Friday to share my own genuine thoughts on this.
---------------------------------------------------
Avenue of Poplars at Dawn was set to join the ranks of van Gogh masterpieces. This "lost" work would sell for millions and generate volumes of scholarship comparing it to the two other paintings van Gogh made of the same scene at different times.
This pleased Joris van den Berg, for he, not van Gogh, had painted Avenue of Poplars at Dawn. Joris was an expert forger and he was certain that his latest creation would be authenticated as genuine. That would not only increase his wealth enormously but also give him tremendous satisfaction.
Only a few close friends knew what Joris was up to. One expressed very serious moral misgivings, which Joris had brushed off. As far as he was concerned, if this painting was judged to be as good as a van Gogh original, then it was worth every penny that was paid for it. Anyone who paid more than it was really worth just because it was van Gogh's own work was a fool who deserved to be parted from his money.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 196.
---------------------------------------------------
While Joris is clearly deceiving the world in a problematic way, does this say anything interesting about the nature of art and how it is bound to the artist? I'll be back on Friday to share my own genuine thoughts on this.
